Building Rapport

What is the value of plain language? Part 2

Don’t expect me to wax philosophic. I am not taking this up as a deep subject. This is practical. We plain language professionals want to be reasonable but we don’t want to be exploited for our naiveté. But some clients are clueless about how much effort goes into plain language. They undervalue our results.

Years ago, a friend did a revision and reduction of a 14-page standard form. She billed $10,000 for 3 month’s work. In the year that followed, the company saved $100,000 in printing costs due to the new form. But when asked to fund the second stage of the project, the company declined. I’d say the value of plain language was 10 times its cost. And they passed.

Let me give you a personal example. Another friend, a lawyer, was asked to comment on a draft plain-language description of procedures in his agency. Members of the public, who would be in distress, were the intended readers. He asked me to do a better rewrite. He would pay me himself and take credit.

I worked on it at an hourly rate and billed him fairly for $1000.

It turned out the agency has a plain language explanation of its new legislation on its website. But the draft procedures used different terminology for the same things. I knew enough from my previous experience to look for that.

The agency was pleased with “his” effort and gave him an honorarium of $250.00. which in no way represented the effort at HIS hourly rate.

I don’t know what we can do to make clients appreciate our value.

I try to inform individual clients what I do for them. I have always included in a proposal an outline of the steps I will need to take. When working on a project, I always provide a work plan and schedule to the client at the start.

What do you suggest?

Too often, we are expected to go faster and faster for political reasons. Too many people think plain language change is quick and easy.

Plain Language in Organizations

To help people cope, Kate Harrison and I wrote Plain Language in Organizations: An Action Plan (ebook) but this plan addresses the plain language change in a single organization. The newest developments apply to an entire industry, a U.S. state, or a national government apparatus.

Delay: Country by country

Recently in South Africa, the plain language trainers, writers aountrynd editors had been rushing to satisfy clients who needed to comply with the approaching deadline set by their new Consumer Protection Act. And businesses spent millions over the 18-month advance period. The original date for effect has now been delayed from October this year to March 2011. Even after 18 months for preparation the government has not filled all the commission posts nor released regulations to guide compliance efforts.

Elizabeth Warren has been given the task of setting up the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau by July 2011. Because hers is a temporary appointment, the Bureau won’t be able to publish regulations until a permanent director is approved by the U.S. Congress. Not a bad idea to take some time.

One U.S. government employee is quoted elsewhere saying:

Making plain language a requirement, rather than just a best practice, means agency web managers will be able to make a stronger case for allocating dollars towards content producers and writers… It isn’t easy to simplify some government content, so you need that expertise to be truly successful. Plain language would mean better service for citizens, which is what every federal web manager is striving to provide.

Changing the whole government’s style

Soon the U.S. President will sign the Plain Writing Act 2010 (almost certain since Obama was a sponsor of the previous bill). Another change process will begin as all government agencies scramble to comply. This legislation may run into problems with its deadlines also.

My friend and a plain language advocate, William Dubay , has commented elsewhere on this new Act:

Government interest in plain language began in the 1970s in response to consumer complaints. Most states at that time enacted laws that required plain language in agency regulations and insurance policies. Some of these laws have been very effective. Insurance commissioners regularly enforce the insurance requirements but most of the agency requirements are lacking enforcement and standards.

The message may be loud and clear on jargon, but weak and vague on standards, funding, and enforcement. Managers will be loathe to implement new demands for which no resources have been provided. Americans may be losing money because of poor writing practices, but good writing practices take training, method, and practice, which all cost money.

Clear definitions still to come

For all of these programs, one challenge is to decide what sort of efforts or results will satisfy the expectation of plain language. An agreeable definition is hard to come by. The international, non-government Plain Language Working Group of experts is still working on this too. Even agreement amongst plain language advocates is hard to reach.

Managing change

Dominique Joseph, a language analyst in Ottawa, has provided some links for support on managing change:

• Kotter’s 8-step change model: http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newPPM_82.htm
• Website based on Kotter’s “Heart of Change” book: http://www.theheartofchange.com/
• Chip and Dan Heath (in their book “Switch”), also talk about the importance of using both “feeling” and “thinking” to create the motivation for change.
• A favorite story — Gloves on the boardoom table: http://www.theheartofchange.com/ It’s wonderful

Still, for a mere $15 Plain Language in Organizations is a good guide for use within a department or division of a larger entity.

picture credit: Cover image of a foundational text of the plain language movement, the 1966 Gobbledygook Has Gotta Go by Bureau of Land Management employee John O’Hara; via the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.

I’ve just posted over at the PlainLanguageInPlainEnglish group blog. Go see: Magically simple process, but not quick and easy

Today we have a guest post from Dominique Joseph.

Is it possible or even useful to legislate ‘plain language’?

This question has been asked, at least, since “The Decline and fall of gobbledygook: Report on plain language document”, produced by the Canadian Bar Association and the Canadian Bankers’ Association joint committee in 1990.

There is more complete and recent info, but it still raises good points. I will start with the committee’s point of view, and then provide the definitions for the subjective and objective approaches (since those two terms appear in the point of view).

THE JOINT COMMITTEE’S POINT OF VIEW:

“The Joint Committee does not believe that plain language documentation is a suitable matter to be dealt with in legislation. The problem with plain language legislation is that it ignores the fact that plain language drafting is a process rather than the application of a fixed set of rules.

Thus, in the case of the “objective approach, one could apply the rules set out in the Connecticut statute and still have a document that is unintelligible. In the case of the “subjective” approach, a problem arises because there is no commonly accepted standard of what is readable. A person compelled to draft a “readable” document by statute is unlikely to strive for the highest standard of readability.

Legislation can be effective when its object is to prohibit persons from engaging in specified types of undesirable conduct. Legislation is not effective when it tries to require individuals to undertake some positive action that requires time, skill, effort, and commitment.”

SUBJECTIVE and OBJECTIVE APPROACHES:

“The legislative approaches to date have taken two forms. The first approach, adopted by New York and the Alberta legislation, has been called the “subjective” approach because of the general requirement that agreements and contracts be written in a “clear manner using words with common everyday meanings.” Beyond this general guideline, the subjective approach does not define plain language nor does this approach establish specific criteria for a plain language document.

[...] The second approach to plain language legislation, adopted by Connecticut, has been called the “objective” approach because of specific requirements defining what constitutes a plain language document. Typically, this approach stipulates the average length of sentences, the size, and style of typeface used, the length of lines and the size of margins. In addition, this approach may require the document to score in a particular range on a readability test, such as the Flesch test.”

A very interesting puzzle, indeed!

My co-author, Kate Harrison Whiteside, and I have released two books on LuLu, in The Plain Language Wizardry Series.

These are downloadable and printable but the second is also an interactive ebook:

Plain Language in Organizations: An Action Plan

and

Website Usability: A Plain Language Toolbox

The previews provide each book’s table of contents.